Theory of mind in two generation of deaf children

THEORY OF MIND IN TWO GENERATION OF DEAF CHILDREN Antonia M. González Cuenca Inmaculada Quintana García Carmen Barajas Esteban Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Universidad de Málaga. Spain RESEARCH AIM The study´s aim is to provide an examination of false belief understanding among deaf children using current hearing technology as compared to children who, belonging to a former generation, did not use such technology. The effect of digital hearing aids or cochlear implant on theory of mind (ToM) development has been researched. Furthermore, the relationship among age, linguistic development and mentalist abilities has been analyzed PARTICIPANTS •100 children and teenagers with a severe or profound hearing-loss. They were divided in two groups: •Group 1: 54 participants did not use current hearing technology, aged between 6 and 19 years. They were assessed in 2000. All of them attended school for deaf children. •Group 2: 46 participants used current hearing technology, aged between 6 and 14 years. 26 employed cochlear implant and 20 used digital hearing-aid. 58% was fitted before 3 years old. They were assessed between 2012 and 2014. All of them attended general primary education classrooms. •All of participants had hearing parents , used oral language as a main communication system at home as well as with their teachers. INSTRUMENTS 1. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III provided participants lexical age (Dunn, Padilla, Lugo &Dunn, 1986) 2. ToM asessment. Three tasks were used: •2.1. Contents False Belief (first order): A child judges another person´s false belief about what there could be in a distinctive container when the child knows what there actually is in the container (Hogrefe, Wimmer & Perner, 1986) •2.2 Change of Location (first order) : A child judges another person´s false belief about the location of an object. Sally and Anne classic false belief task (Baron-Cohen, Leslie & Frith, 1985) •2.3.Change of Location (second order) : A child judges another´s person false belief concerning to the belief a third person has about the location of an object (Núñez, 1993) Range of scores in ToM competence is among 0 to 3 points. TABLE 1. AVERAGE AND ESTÁNDAR DESVIATION IN LEXICAL AGE AND AGE IN TWO GROUPS * AVERAGE G1 G2 G1 G2 LEXICAL AGE 4,2 6,3 1,31 1,56 AGE 13,54 9,71 3,93 1,86 SD (*) Group 1: Without hearing technology Group 2: With hearing technology LEXICAL COMPETENCE COMPARING TWO GROUPS •After comparing two groups, results showed significant differences in lexical ages: F = 32.66, p < .01, indeed controlling effects of age. Group 2 (used current hearing technology) had an average lexical age bigger than group 1 (didn´t use current hearing technology). Although group 2’s mean age was lower than group 1’s. TABLE 2. AVERAGE AND STANDARD DESVIATION IN TOM SCORE IN BOTH GROUPS * AVERAGE G1 G2 G1 G2 ToM Score (0-3 points) 1,89 2,11 1,19 ,9 SD (*) G1 : without hearing technology G2: with hearing technology ToM COMPETENCE COMPARING GROUPS •After comparing two groups, results didn´t show significant differences in ToM average: F = 1,05 p = .308. However, controlling effects of age differences were significant : F=27,554, p<.01 Age and Hearing Technology Effects on ToM •Four groups were formed for research about age and hearing technology effect on ToM competence: –G1Y (without technology and aged between 6 and 11 years) N= 14 –G1O (without technology and aged between 12 and 19 years) N= 40 –G2Y (with technology and aged between 6 and 11 years) N= 33 –G2O (with technology and aged between 12 and 14 years) N= 13